beta
Text
1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 71,459,620 as well as 15% per annum from January 17, 2017 to the day of complete payment.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On March 24, 2015, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a subcontract with respect to the removal works (hereinafter “instant construction works”) among the new construction works of D neighborhood living facilities ordered by C (hereinafter “instant construction works”) as the construction period from March 24, 2015 to May 15, 2015, and the contract price of KRW 88,231,00 (including additional taxes).
B. The E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”) received KRW 20,00,000, out of the service price of KRW 79,475,000 from March 24, 2015 to June 9, 2015, from the Defendant, and received KRW 71,459,620 (the outstanding service price of KRW 59,475,00 and the delayed payment thereof) from the Plaintiff on December 27, 2016, by filing a lawsuit against the Plaintiff on the remaining service price.
[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 4-15
2. Determination on the claim for indemnity
A. The plaintiff's assertion (1) is that the defendant pays the service cost to be paid to E on behalf of the plaintiff, and the defendant must return the above cost to the plaintiff.
(2) The Defendant: (a) although the Defendant faithfully performed the instant construction, the volume subject to removal increased more than the originally anticipated volume; (b) the Defendant continued to incur additional costs due to the suspension of construction due to civil petitions, holiday work to comply with the construction period, reconstruction due to the change of work instructions, etc.
Ultimately, the Defendant spent the total of KRW 75,203,280 in the construction process of the instant case, and the total of KRW 79,475,00 (including KRW 20,000,000 paid by the Defendant) increased the construction cost in total by KRW 154,678,280, unlike the initial estimate.
Nevertheless, since the Plaintiff failed to pay the increased construction cost, the Defendant could not fully pay the price that the Defendant is obligated to pay to E, the Plaintiff’s payment of the said price is merely a performance of the Plaintiff’s obligation and can claim the Defendant to pay the said price.